Caccioppoli v Mayfair Housing, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability—whether a gate at an apartment complex could have swung and struck the plaintiff as described, and the propriety of summary judgment based on an expert’s contrary opinion.
Granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground the accident could not have occurred as plaintiff claimed.
The order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing. Their engineer’s affidavit—based on an inspection two years after the accident and contradicting plaintiff’s testimony—created issues of fact and credibility that cannot be resolved on summary judgment; plaintiff’s account was not incredible as a matter of law.
Background
Plaintiff alleged she was injured when, after walking through a metal gate at an apartment complex, the gate swung behind her and struck her ankle. Defendants argued the incident was impossible as described. Their engineer, inspecting the gate approximately two years later, opined that when unlatched the gate would lodge in the grass due to gravity and installation and could not swing freely. Plaintiff testified at deposition that the gate closed behind her and struck her ankle.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding the accident could not have occurred in the manner plaintiff described.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law, with costs, and defendants’ motion denied. The court held defendants did not establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The engineer’s opinion merely created issues of fact and credibility, which are for the factfinder, and defendants failed to show plaintiff’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. The motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms New York summary judgment principles: the movant bears the initial burden to eliminate material factual issues; credibility determinations are not made on summary judgment; and an expert affidavit that simply contradicts a plaintiff’s testimony does not render that testimony incredible as a matter of law. Defendants must demonstrate impossibility or unreliability beyond mere contradiction to obtain dismissal at the summary judgment stage.
In premises liability cases, defendants cannot win summary judgment merely by offering expert opinions that dispute a plaintiff’s account; unless they establish impossibility or that the testimony is incredible as a matter of law, factual disputes must be resolved by a factfinder.